Telangana High Court
WP/40344/2012 of G.Suresh Babu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2012
R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.40344 of 2012 Date: December 31, 2012 Between: G. Suresh Babu … Petitioner And The Govt. of A.P., Revenue Dept., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Order: Heard learned counsel for the
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Writ Petition No.40344 of 2012
Date: December 31, 2012
Between:
G. Suresh Babu
… Petitioner
And
The Govt. of A.P., Revenue Dept.,rep. by its Principal Secretary,Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others … Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue.
Petitioner has questioned notice dated 22.12.2012issued under Section 6 of the A.P. Land EncroachmentAct, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) by the 4[th] respondent-Tahsildar, ordering his eviction from the land admeasuringAc.0.11 guntas in Sy.No.525/A, AA, E and 528 situated atBorgaon village, Makloor Mandal, on the ground that hehas encroached upon Nizam Sagar Project Canal land of Distributory No.68.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is the ownerand possessor of land admeasuring Ac.2.23 guntas inSy.No. Sy.No.525/A, AA, E and 528 situated at Borgaonvillage, Makloor Mandal, Nizamabad District havingpurchased the same by way of registered sale deed and itis stated that, in the said land, his predecessors in titlehave constructed a poultry farm. It is the grievance of thepetitioner that in spite of filing valid explanation, eviction isordered without assigning any valid reasons.
Under the Scheme of the Act, against the order ofeviction passed by the Tahsildar, there is a remedy ofappeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer. It appears,questioning the order of eviction passed by the 4[th]respondent-Tahsildar, petitioner has filed an appealbefore the 3[rd] respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. In view of pendency of the appeal, it is not desirable torecord any finding on the merits on the claim of thepetitioner. However, it is to be noticed that petitioner isclaiming ownership of the land in question, wherein apoultry farm is constructed, through registered sale deedand is in possession of the same from the last severalyears.
Under the Scheme of the Act, as a substantiveremedy of appeal is available to the persons aggrieved, I
deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directingthe 3[rd] respondent-RDO to pass appropriate orders in theappeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible,preferably within three months from the date of receipt ofthis order after affording opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner. Further, there shall be a direction to therespondents not to take steps for eviction of the petitionerfrom the land in question till appropriate orders are passedin the appeal and communicated to the petitioner.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Consequently, WPMP No.51183 of 2012 stands disposedof. No order as to costs.
December 31, 2012Note: C.C. by 02.01.2013B.O.MRR
_____________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J